Wheeler v. Alison et al

Filing 80

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/20/2014 denying 73 Motion directing Litigation Coordinator to provide assistance and denying 74 , 77 Motions to Compel. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC WHEELER,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ALLISON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12cv00861 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
DIRECTING LITIGATION COORDINATOR TO
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE
(Document 73)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO COMPEL
(Documents 74 and 77)

17
Plaintiff Eric Wheeler (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of

18
19

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

20

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Defendants Allison, Duck, Murrieta, Lowder, Loftis, Neubarth, Ancheta, Ross and Mui have

21
22

appeared in this action. As a result, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on January

23

17, 2014. The discovery deadline is currently June 16, 2014.

24

A.

25

Motion for Assistance
On March 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion in which he requests an order directing the

26

Litigation Coordinator at any prison where he may be located to (1) provide assistance in locating

27

witnesses and obtaining their contact information; (2) provide phone service for interviewing his

28

witnesses; and (3) provide internet, fax and email access.
1

1

Generally, a prisoner proceeding pro se has a range of discovery tools available, including

2

interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admission. “Parties may obtain

3

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . .

4
5
6
7

Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The responding party is
obligated to respond to the interrogatories to the fullest extent possible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), and
any objections must be stated with specificity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). For document production

8

requests, responding parties must produce documents which are in their “possession, custody or

9

control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).

10
11

Moreover, it is Plaintiff’s burden to prove the elements of his claim and he is not necessarily
entitled to assistance simply because he is incarcerated.

12
13
14

In certain situations, an incarcerated plaintiff may be entitled to narrowly-tailored assistance,
but such situations require a specific showing of the discovery sought and the need for assistance.
Here, Plaintiff has made only a blanket request for assistance and the Court will not grant such relief.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
B.

Motions to Compel
Also on March 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to disclose information

that Plaintiff feels should have been included in Defendants’ initial disclosures. Plaintiff identifies
documents such as personnel files, personnel disciplinary records and confidential inmate sources.
However, Defendants’ disclosures are limited to documents and other materials that they intend to use
in their defense. To the extent Plaintiff believes that he needs this information to support his claims,
he may request the information through discovery.
Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), the parties must supplement or
correct the disclosures in a timely manner, and failure to do so may result in the inability to present

25
26
27
28
2

1
2

such evidence in support of a motion, or at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). In other words, the sanctions
from failure to properly disclose are self-executing.

3
4
5
6
7
8

Plaintiff filed a similar motion on March 17, 2014, in which he requests that the Court order
Defendants to produce information related to confidential inmate sources. Again, Plaintiff must
request this information through discovery requests made to Defendants. There is no indication that
Plaintiff has propounded any discovery requests on Defendants. If Plaintiff requests the information
through discovery and finds Defendants’ responses to be inadequate, he may file a motion to compel
at that time.

9

Plaintiff’s motions are therefore DENIED.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

13

/s/ Dennis

March 20, 2014

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

14

L. Beck

3b142a

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3